Not for me - given that I don't think evil is a useful concept, especially in the way that it is used by the religious most often. Praying for redemption and to become a better person is less likely to do so than understanding why someone has committed some bad behaviour and to enact something that does change them. Evil is more like a life sentence or execution condemnation, hence why it is not useful, given that change seems impossible but actually might be possible. And perhaps it is easier for the religious to accept - since they are so keen to follow rules and commandments - but not so useful in reality where we are all mostly flawed human beings..
What you think, and what I think, is not important, is it? We will see that at some point in time, if we haven't yet done so.
I didn't say science was a path to truth, but that what it shows us tends towards reality, and if one dismisses much of science then one is on the wrong road. Such things as how we are related to other life, how we have evolved, the age of the Earth and the universe, etc., all have good evidence so as to be believable as to being what actually happened. This is why I'm not so keen to discuss with you (and others) when they can't even accept what even the larger numbers of the religious also accept - as to science mostly reflecting reality - and as to why I'm too old to want to bother educating others when it is their responsibility to do so. If you prefer to believe some religious explanation why would anyone deny you of this?.
Well, I don't see the need to try to open the eyes of anyone who doesn't want to have them opened either.
Well many religions might be right as to aspects of human nature - just as anyone who has keen observation might do so, and which can be seen in recorded literature over the ages. But, since we have so many different religious beliefs, and all not agreeing, we must conclude that they all cannot be correct, and perhaps none are. Given the option of choosing one is perhaps not so good when they appear much the same, behave much the same, and tend to have the same life histories - besides all the conflicts that have ensued from them..
Well that's clearly a biased opinion, since, it's not based on fact, but one's personal opinion.
If one looks at the skulls of our ancestors going back through time, the evidence we have (inadequate as it is given the understandable shortage of specimens) tends to show the shape has changed along with the size, such that this should be reflected in what the skull encased - the brain - and hence it is likely that the various bits of the brain have evolved as much as other parts of our bodies..
Looking at different animal's brain size, and thinking that one must have come before the other, makes sense to you?
I recall when they were saying that fossils of many animals were ancient and extinct... you know... evolved to something else, and gone off the scene... until they turned up. Then they coined a name - living fossils.
I also remember when they were saying, evolution is a slow gradual process, until explosions of complex living things hit them left right and center, and they started scratching their heads, and arguing with each other.
One well known expert coined the term, punctuated equilibrium.
Yes, I know of the stories you believe, but they are no more reality than Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs... to many of us.
The majority don't believe them either.
Just because more scientists believe, that doesn't make them true, and the minority are thousands, not just a handful of reputable, intelligent scientists... experts in the field... with Noble prizes, and positions as heads in their field. What?
If it were so clear, that could not happen. Nobody disagrees that light is made up of spectrums of color.
So, you are of course free to believe one thing or the other, but no, it's not a reality, nor as clear as you... and other, want to claim.
Hardly, since as I mentioned earlier no doubt, all the various branches of science do not dispute this and in general support this as being true. If any part of science did show an anomaly then it would have appeared like a sore thumb by now. You will find very few scientists who disagree about the timescales of the universe, the Earth forming, life forming, and the evolution of the human species..
Did you mean to say the various scientists in various branches?
Appealing to authority again? What's with the fallacy? Doesn't do much for any argument.
Consensus Science and the Peer Review
It is our responsibility as scientists, physicians, reviewers, and/or editors to be alert and always remember that “[I would remind you to notice where the claim of] consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way” (M. Crichton).
In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.
In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples.
When Continental Drift Was Considered Pseudoscience
They suppose... as you do.
No, I meant that is why many can't believe in evolution because they prefer to believe 'God did it'. For some that is, given that many with religious beliefs - perhaps the majority too - can actually accept most of science but still retain their beliefs in God. Given that they no doubt will just point to God influencing evolution or whatever - rather than the direct acting as some, like yourself, seem to prefer to believe - because it was written in the Bible perhaps and this must be taken literally.
I believe in creation, for a number of reasons, and none of those reason include preference. Maybe you prefer to believe in evolution? Yes?
